The Bureau no longer does old ground. And never did do wishful thinking.

Where are they now?

The London Crown Prosecution ServiceThe London CPS covers the Metropolitan police (Scotland Yard) area. Quote: "As the principal prosecuting authority in England and Wales the CPS is responsible for criminal cases beyond the police investigatory stage. The CPS will advise the police on cases for possible prosecution, review cases submitted by the police, determine any charges in all but minor cases, prepare cases for court and present cases at court. Primarily, the CPS will review the evidence gathered by the police and provide guidance. [Bureau italics] During pre-charge procedures and throughout the investigative and prosecuting process the CPS may assist the police by explaining what additional work or evidence could raise the case to a viable charging standard thereby rectifying any evidential deficiencies. Once the evidence is gathered the CPS will then decide, on the basis of this evidence, whether a case should be pursued or dropped." Evening Standard "London’s chief crown prosecutor Alison Saunders and her deputy Jenny Hopkins flew to Portugal in April to meet counterparts to discuss leads identified in the Met’s review." Evening Standard, June 21 2013.The Evening Standard is even more broke than its stable mate the Independent, is owned by one of the Russian oligarchs – the plunderers who Putin perhaps should have executed – and has almost no full-time journalists. So it's about as original and reliable as the Portugal News. But it does have an agreement with the Mail owners to use their stories (this one is understood to be left over from the Mail's "UK takeover" piece last week) and the two prosecutors are named and have not denied the news item. Jenny Hopkins is not just a deputy: she is Head of the Complex Casework Unit.

Alison Saunders

No sauces neededSo consider two points. First, it is another opportunity for a Home Office or Yard refutation of last week's stories and yet, once again, no rebuttal, or even guiding hint suggesting caution, has appeared. Inference: the "takeover" story is again strengthened and, as things stand, very likely to be true in broad outline. Secondly, what can the CPS Metropolitan police area heads have been doing there? Well, they are prosecutors, so even in this crooked old world it's fair to infer that they went to discuss possible prosecution in accordance with their role quoted above.

Jenny Hopkins

Of whom? The answer can only be either people who were neither arguidos nor persons of interest in the original Portuguese investigation or those who were. The former, in theory, could be, literally, anybody: ink-blots from the troubled but vivid imagination of Gerry McCann such as paid toddler-thieves and international paedophile rings; others who have hitherto escaped any study at all and may be living anywhere from New Zealand to Brazil; still others who might have been highlighted by the Yard team in their "opportunity" investigations and, lastly and most fatuously, the unfortunates like Hewitt whose names were bandied about by the paid liar Clarence Mitchell, the sheep-strangler Edgar (seen above demonstrating the tools of his trade) and their paymasters.The one thing we know for absolutely certain about this disparate group is that the same Portuguese Attorney-General's department which highlighted the absence of any evidence of wrong-doing by the McCanns and archived the case has repeatedly stated that "no new evidence" of significance has been provided to it during the period of the Scotland Yard review.Your Question AnsweredUnless the Attorney-General's department is publicly lying on the record, which we consider absolutely out of the question, then no material has been provided to that department to justify even investigation of any new names, let alone possible prosecution. So the answer to the question who could have been the subject of Anglo-Portuguese discussions regarding prosecution is self-evident and incontrovertible: persons against whom the evidence for prosecution has already been gathered (remember "no new evidence") in the original Amaral/Rebelo investigation. Our crime and lunacy correspondent adds: the whitewash is nearly complete. The two women, one of whom is known to live in a part of London where a Freemasons' temple stood only two hundred years ago, have probably been selected by the prime minister himself. In any case their mission is to put the final details into place in Operation Patsydeath. at 14:00

A 'cover up' or 'whitewash' is of no value or use to the PM whatsoever. Whatever your politics, and his is not mine, there is absolutely no reason for believing that either would be to his advantage. What might well be to his advantage would be the solving of the case to almost everyone's satisfaction... if you can call it satisfaction, as the poor child is most likely dead. None of us on here knows for sure what happened. We all have our most likely scenarios. All I can say is that the eventual denoument with the two police services, Attorney General, UK CPS, and the rest of them all going for it together had better be plausible and provable by the evidence.

comperedna wrote:A 'cover up' or 'whitewash' is of no value or use to the PM whatsoever. Whatever your politics, and his is not mine, there is absolutely no reason for believing that either would be to his advantage. What might well be to his advantage would be the solving of the case to almost everyone's satisfaction... if you can call it satisfaction, as the poor child is most likely dead. None of us on here knows for sure what happened. We all have our most likely scenarios. All I can say is that the eventual denoument with the two police services, Attorney General, UK CPS, and the rest of them all going for it together had better be plausible and provable by the evidence.

I agree comperedna......Blacksmith does seem a bit vague , like you I want to see justice for Madeleine but being suspicious after all the help the Mcanns have received from Blair , Brown and now Cameron will the cps be impartial ?The Portugese did have the option to sue the McCanns for negligence, they chose not to....that's what bothers me.

Panda, I seem to remember the PJ did not prosecute for negligence, when they could have done, because they were fairly confident of a much bigger charge... but it did not come off! After a bit the negligence possibility fell, because it was out of time. More serious charges can still be brought after a much longer time. I could well be wrong about this.

Thanks annabel. Desmond had to pay out over a £1 million including Court costs so will be rubbing his hands in glee at the thought that the McCanns might get their cumuppance ....strang, no news on the Book.

comperedna wrote:Panda, I seem to remember the PJ did not prosecute for negligence, when they could have done, because they were fairly confident of a much bigger charge... but it did not come off! After a bit the negligence possibility fell, because it was out of time. More serious charges can still be brought after a much longer time. I could well be wrong about this.

thats the way i remember it too-- im on another forum - not a madeleine one because its not allowed - anyway we got talking about sun online and 3as was mentioned - bit of a memory lane trip tbh - anyway can anyone remember the poster that said there WAS a small amount of dna sent elsewhere ? -- and also i said - the pj could have had silver - neglect - they wanted gold -more - have they even got bronze ?

comperedna wrote:Panda, I seem to remember the PJ did not prosecute for negligence, when they could have done, because they were fairly confident of a much bigger charge... but it did not come off! After a bit the negligence possibility fell, because it was out of time. More serious charges can still be brought after a much longer time. I could well be wrong about this.CYour'e right comperedna, they could be charged with neglect causing harm which carried a 10 year sentence......you have to ask why the McCanns were not.......could it have something to do with Gordon Browns' meeting with the Portugese PM at the time?

comperedna wrote:Panda, I seem to remember the PJ did not prosecute for negligence, when they could have done, because they were fairly confident of a much bigger charge... but it did not come off! After a bit the negligence possibility fell, because it was out of time. More serious charges can still be brought after a much longer time. I could well be wrong about this.CYour'e right comperedna, they could be charged with neglect causing harm which carried a 10 year sentence......you have to ask why the McCanns were not.......could it have something to do with Gordon Browns' meeting with the Portugese PM at the time?

Good morning Panda

If I remember rightly, Gordon Brown said publicly, that he was going to discuss the case with the Portuguese Prime Minister, Jose Socrates. Do you know if Goncalo Amaral was removed from the investigation, before or after after Brown's meeting with Socrates? The reason why I'm asking is because I once read on another forum, that Brown was instrumental in the decision to remove Goncalo from the investigation.

comperedna wrote:Panda, I seem to remember the PJ did not prosecute for negligence, when they could have done, because they were fairly confident of a much bigger charge... but it did not come off! After a bit the negligence possibility fell, because it was out of time. More serious charges can still be brought after a much longer time. I could well be wrong about this.CYour'e right comperedna, they could be charged with neglect causing harm which carried a 10 year sentence......you have to ask why the McCanns were not.......could it have something to do with Gordon Browns' meeting with the Portugese PM at the time?

Good morning Panda

If I remember rightly, Gordon Brown said publicly, that he was going to discuss the case with the Portuguese Prime Minister, Jose Socrates. Do you know if Goncalo Amaral was removed from the investigation, before or after after Brown's meeting with Socrates? The reason why I'm asking is because I once read on another forum, that Brown was instrumental in the decision to remove Goncalo from the investigation.

Morning Kathybelle, did you see my post combined with a reply to Kitti asking you to find the 4 theories on what happened to Madeleine in the PJ Final Report? While you are looking.....check out the date Amaral was taken off the case and the meeting between GB and Socrates. I know Gordon was in Portugal to sign the latest EU Treaty , he could well have asked Socrates to intervene. I think Amaral's Book and CD were on sale after he left the Police Force.

comperedna wrote:Panda, I seem to remember the PJ did not prosecute for negligence, when they could have done, because they were fairly confident of a much bigger charge... but it did not come off! After a bit the negligence possibility fell, because it was out of time. More serious charges can still be brought after a much longer time. I could well be wrong about this.CYour'e right comperedna, they could be charged with neglect causing harm which carried a 10 year sentence......you have to ask why the McCanns were not.......could it have something to do with Gordon Browns' meeting with the Portugese PM at the time?

Good morning Panda

If I remember rightly, Gordon Brown said publicly, that he was going to discuss the case with the Portuguese Prime Minister, Jose Socrates. Do you know if Goncalo Amaral was removed from the investigation, before or after after Brown's meeting with Socrates? The reason why I'm asking is because I once read on another forum, that Brown was instrumental in the decision to remove Goncalo from the investigation.

Morning Kathybelle, did you see my post combined with a reply to Kitti asking you to find the 4 theories on what happened to Madeleine in the PJ Final Report? While you are looking.....check out the date Amaral was taken off the case and the meeting between GB and Socrates. I know Gordon was in Portugal to sign the latest EU Treaty , he could well have asked Socrates to intervene. I think Amaral's Book and CD were on sale after he left the Police Force.

Sorry Panda, for some reason I didn't see the combined post of yourself and Kitti. I'll have a look at the PJ Final Report now.

Regarding Goncalo Amaral's book and cd, you are correct he did resign from the PJ in order to write/sell his book.

Panda wrote:O.K. Kathybelle, as I say , there is probably in mccannfiles info regarding the meeting and the date amaral was sacked. Whenever I try to find anything there it's like walking around a maze.

Hi Panda, according to the link below, Goncalo Amaral was removed from the case around the 01/10/2007, or as Goncalo states, 22 days after the McCanns left for the UK after being made arguidos.

According to the link below, Gordon Brown met Jose Socrates, to discuss the case, on 19/10/2007. I don't know if the information in these files, is the same information as the information in the mccannfiles.com.

'thats the way i remember it too-- im on another forum - not a madeleine one because its not allowed - anyway we got talking about sun online and 3as was mentioned - bit of a memory lane trip tbh - anyway can anyone remember the poster that said there WAS a small amount of dna sent elsewhere ? -- and also i said - the pj could have had silver - neglect - they wanted gold -more - have they even got bronze ?'[url=u1917][/url][url=u1917][/url][url=t23800-blacksmith#top][/url]

I certainly remember that being stated, probably on 3As or possibly on the Mirror forum, but I'm not sure whether it was merely a rumour, or forum myth or not. The extra sample was supposed to have been sent to a lab in another European country... can't remember which... Belgium? Germany? There was quite a bit of discussion as to which nations had one or more high quality forensic labs. Great faith was placed in the now defunct UK Forensic Science Service...

'thats the way i remember it too-- im on another forum - not a madeleine one because its not allowed - anyway we got talking about sun online and 3as was mentioned - bit of a memory lane trip tbh - anyway can anyone remember the poster that said there WAS a small amount of dna sent elsewhere ? -- and also i said - the pj could have had silver - neglect - they wanted gold -more - have they even got bronze ?'[url=u1917][/url][url=u1917][/url][url=t23800-blacksmith#top][/url]

I certainly remember that being stated, probably on 3As or possibly on the Mirror forum, but I'm not sure whether it was merely a rumour, or forum myth or not. The extra sample was supposed to have been sent to a lab in another European country... can't remember which... Belgium? Germany? There was quite a bit of discussion as to which nations had one or more high quality forensic labs. Great faith was placed in the now defunct UK Forensic Science Service...

I remember that, I thought it was Spain. The FSS must have been recommended to the Portugese by Stuart Prior....yet he aleready knew the reputation of the FSS, several Police Stations had their own Forensics because of the FSS ineptitude. I wrote to Stuart Prior about his suggesting "no useful purpose" would be served in reply to Mapilly's e-mail asking if they should attend a recon., and did he not think he had got too close when Gerry could call him Stu.......I never got a reply, I wonder why???

I remember that and I remember it was said a sample was sent to Spain. yes I agree it seems that call me Stu got a bit too close, and compromised his professionalism. Is it possible be may have been influenced by the number of Doctors and wasn't one a lawyer that he had contact with.

tanszi wrote:I remember that and I remember it was said a sample was sent to Spain. yes I agree it seems that call me Stu got a bit too close, and compromised his professionalism. Is it possible be may have been influenced by the number of Doctors and wasn't one a lawyer that he had contact with.

Hi tanzi. I don't recall a Lawyer but Stuart definitely got too close, he must have known for instance that the Tapas statements did not agree because John Buck had notified the Foreign Office. They might be blaming the Portugese for the way they handled the case but the British too were negligent.

Deniable - for a while - but trueIn a good natured nudge at our friends the active McCann supporters we asked whether the implications of what has been happening recently might be a little too much for them to take in. That includes the implications for The Search.There has been no rebuttal of the key elements of the story presented, verbally and non-attributably, over the past week or two. In other words it is essentially true and it comes from official sources. There are no free lunches in this hard old world and no stories are ever released without a reason: the information has been deliberately given to us, the poor dumb public, not for our benefit and not out of a belief in freedom of information, but for purposes that we cannot yet discern.There is nothing sinister in this. Not, that is, as long as it is an interim measure and the public, who pay the salaries of the people involved in this affair, are eventually given full access to the facts. The question of exactly why this elaborate game of whispering in the shadows is taking place now, when the only previous leaks from the review have been forced (by Metodo and Amaral respectively) is a matter for speculation. It could be that in the recent negotiations over future funding and, indeed, the survival of the review, agreement was only reached on condition that some results had to start flowing – soon and publicly.Our own opinion is that behind all the manoeuvring the release is, after all, what we referred to as a flyer: a deniable release of information to prepare the public for controversial news and to observe the immediate reactions from the public itself and from interested parties, including the reaction of silence. Sombre thoughtsBut never mind the possible reasons: it's done and it can't have been done without the agreement of the home secretary. Now, back to the original question. Is it conceivable that the information, which quite clearly tells a tale of a prosecutable case on the horizon, would have been released in this way if there were even the tiniest prospect of Madeleine McCann being alive? We are not the only ones who can read. So can paedophiles, hump-backed enslavers in the rural Algarve, English cleaner perverts in a specially equipped white van and every other possible suspect in the case. If a live Madeleine was being held by one of these then her life has obviously been put in imminent danger by the hint that the authorities have somebody in their sights, whether that hint turns out to be true or not.We don't believe that anyone, from Cameron downwards, could possibly have allowed the release of this provocative information, which screams the game's up get rid of the evidenceand run, unless they were 100% certain that the child was beyond risk. And that, we regret to say, can only be if she has already been rescued, or that someone has confessed to the crime and is no longer a threat or that she is known, beyond any doubt, to be dead.

Hi frenchperson, that is a very positive article ....did yiu write it?

I think SY might be looking for bigger fish as well, Brian Kennedy recruited Metodo 3 and the ex Detectives and I'm sure that there will be evidence of falsified Invoices , Metodo 3 said they didn't receive the sums quoted in the English Papers. I'm sure that Halligen wasn't pad the £300,000 either.